« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Siegelman Appeal: Court Reverses Two Counts, But Upholds Others
The court that's hearing Don Siegelman's appeal of his conviction on bribery charges has reversed two of the counts of which the former Alabama governor was found guilty -- but upheld several others.
In an order issued today, a US appeals court reversed two counts related to Richard Scrushy's activities while on the state board to which Siegelman appointed him.
However, it upheld the several charges related to Siegelman's appointment of Scrushy to the board in the first place, which was found to have come in exchange for campaign contributions -- the heart of the case against Siegelman.
The court also ordered a new sentencing hearing, in light of the reversal of the two counts. It's unclear as yet how those reversals will affect Siegelman's sentencing.
We've put in calls to Siegelman and his lawyers, and will be back with more soon.
Josh
Zachary
Looks like Rove wins. This is not a good outcome. How many of those judges are Republican appointees and members in good standing of the Federalist Society?
March 6, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We only won a major battle in November - not the war.
March 6, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Siegelman goes back to jail. Nice. Rove wins and I'm wondering where justice is in this country.
March 6, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The opinion is here
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200713163.pdf
March 6, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, maybe not. Rove has yet to testify to Congress about this, and there's a long way to go yet. Also the 11th circuit is notoriously republican, who knows how the Supremes will see it.
March 6, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not automatic that it'll go to the Supremes, is it? What's the legal issue?
March 7, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be interested in hearing Scott Horton's take on this development. Any chance TPM can get a quote from him?
March 6, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to opinion?
March 6, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the likelihood of further appeal? My impression was that, in addition to the political-prosecution angle, the appeal was claiming that calling appointments in return for campaign contributions out as corruption could be wrong as a matter of law.
March 6, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was the appeal. He now has three options only - petition this panel of the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration (absolutely no chance of success and a waste of time, plus he doesn't meet the legal standard for reconsideration), petition the Eleventh Circuit to hear the matter en banc (that is, have all the judges on the Eleventh Circui hear the case. Chances of them deciding to hear the matter en banc I would put at no better than 10% since they only do this in cases where there are overriding legal issues at stake and the only significant issue here is whether evidence of a quid pro quid arrangement can be inferred from the evidence or whether there has to be evidence of an explicit deal), and petitioning the US Supreme Court to hear the case (chance of the SCOTUS accepting the case, 10% at best; chance of them reversing the decision, 20% at best).
March 6, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigeleman guilty, Rove innocent.
Hello, do ya think?
March 6, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This doesn't bold well for Blago!
March 6, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I wish to say that I'm not a lawyer.
After reading the section of the ruling on "quid pro quo," I felt that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals twisted itself into a knot in explaining the difference between "explicit" and "express."
Hope Siegelman appeals.
March 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a lawyer. I think Siegelman was prosecuted for something that is pretty routinely done and he probably was selectively prosecuted. That said, selective prosecution isn't a defense unless you can show that it was done because, for example, you're African-American. They didn't raise selective prosecution here because it wasn't a defense.
And as far as the distinction the court makes between "express" and "explicit" proof of a quid pro quo, they're probably right. In all areas of the law, you can always infer proof of an agreement from the evidence. You never have to have direct proof of the exact agreement. For example, if you show that Joe hates Bob, that Joe paid $50,000 to Jim, and that, a day after receipt of the money, Jim killed Bob, Joe can be convicted of murder even if you have no direct evidence of the conversations between Joe and Jim. I don't think either the entire Eleventh Circuit, in the unlikely event they agree to hear the case, or SCOTUS will reverse the decision
March 6, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard - Thanks for the clarification.
In view of the Siegelman ruling, I look forward to seeing how Blagojevich's case is decided (and appealed should he be found guilty).
March 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole case is absurd particularly when you consider the same people who whined endlessly about "criminalizing policy differences" and criminalizing "politics" are behind this. Siegleman did nothing unethical or illegal in appointing this guy to a board. But if what he did was illegal, then every sitting Governor, Mayor, County Executive and other elected officials with the power of appointment are also guilty and need to be prosecuted right away. It's incredibly preposterous, the whole thing.
March 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post by oleeb is the most intelligent and relevant post in this section of responses. Don Siegleman is an honest person of integrity. He was and is dedicated to serving the people of the state of Alabama. Appointing someone to a board after campaign donations is not a crime; calling it a crime is a joke. Look at the majority of US ambassadors and many of the high level commissions. Federally and at state levels of every state from Alabama to Utah the chief executive appoints donors and friends to powerful and lucrative positions. If Don Siegleman is guilty then every governor and president is guilty. This is hypocrisy and it is wrong that any criminal convictions should stand in this case.
March 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's incredibly preposterous, the whole thing."
Hubris deluded with fleeting power works like a pair of horseblinders.
Rove and his Alabama minions must have felt very well protected when they pulled this one off, as if they KNEW they would never be held accountable.
Here's hoping they were just plain wrong about that.
March 9, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"However, it upheld the several charges related to Siegelman's appointment of Scrushy to the board in the first place, which was found to have come in exchange for campaign contributions -- the heart of the case against Siegelman."
If every elected official who ever received a campaign contribution from someone they later appointed to any position, or who were later given an "earmark" were placed in jail, there would be no politicians out of jail.
Jailing Siegelman for this is the ultimate in partisan politics.
When will the Democrats realize they are holding a lawbook in a gunfight and stop trying to play nice?
March 6, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When? Right before they take their last living gasp for air after having been shot a thosuand times.
March 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope springs eternal.
March 7, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is a piece of shit slime bag, even repulsive to look at.
It is a shame a person like him can wreck the lives of so many people and still walk around free and be praised by some.
I personally do not know if Mr. Siegelman is innocent or guilty, I only know he should be given an opportunity , a FAIR UNBIASED opportunity, to prove his innocence.
I would like to believe that rove will get his someday, but so much changed in America during the bush years.
March 7, 2009 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasnt all charge thrown out for lack of a case in the first place
March 7, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink